Domestic Violence Cases: A Summer Snapshot

PDF Version: Domestic Violence Cases: A Summer Snapshot

Cases commented on: R v Hooker, 2013 ABQB 271; R v Bandesha, 2013 ABCA 255

There were a number of reported Alberta cases involving domestic violence this summer. The decisions collectively illustrate the broad range of issues that can arise in domestic violence cases – for example, constitutional, criminal and family law issues – some of which may now be heard by specialized domestic violence courts. They also show a range of sensitivities on the part of judges to the realities of domestic violence. In this post I will comment on two of the cases, both arising in the criminal context, and in a subsequent post I will comment on two cases arising in the family law context.

Continue reading →

Blurred Lines: The Need for Clear Criteria in the Sentencing of Sexual Assaults

PDF Version: Blurred Lines: The Need for Clear Criteria in the Sentencing of Sexual Assaults

Case commented on: R v Sam, 2013 ABCA 174

What is a “major sexual assault” for the purposes of applying sentencing guidelines in sexual assault cases? Its current definition is unclear. The Alberta Court of Appeal missed an opportunity to provide a concrete definition for major sexual assault in R v Sam, 2013 ABCA 174. This comment will begin by providing background on Sam, and describing how the Court of Appeal did not directly address the issue of major sexual assault in that case. Then, I will discuss how the Court of Appeal should clarify the relevance of violence and de facto consent to sexual assault at the stage of sentencing. Finally, I will argue that factors that are irrelevant to legal culpability for sexual assault may still be relevant at the stage of sentencing.

Continue reading →

Roundtable on Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

PDF Version: Roundtable on Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Cases Considered: Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43

On August 13, 2013, Faculty of Law hosted its last Roundtable discussion of the summer. That discussion focused on the Supreme Court of Canada’s August 1^st decision in Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43 concerning the compensation to be paid to a lawyer appointed to act as a “friend of the court”, known as an amicus curiae. Participants included faculty members, researchers from the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, JD and graduate students, and a post-doc fellow. What participants found most controversial about the decision was not the court’s 5:4 split on the compensation issue, but rather the court’s unanimity on the inappropriateness — and henceforth, presumably, inability — of courts to appoint amicus curiae to act as de facto defence counsel.

Continue reading →

Why Wreck-It Ralph Went to Law School

PDF Version:Why Wreck-It Ralph Went to Law School

Matter commented on: The Ontario Bar Association’s marketing campaign, Why I went to Law School

“I’m bad, and that’s good. I will never be good, and that’s not bad. There’s no one I’d rather be than me.” – Wreck-It Ralph

The Ontario Bar Association’s marketing campaign, Why I went to Law School, has attracted media attention (see National Post article here and Globe and Mail article here) as well as being cogently criticized by Jordan Furlong on SLAW back in February (see article here). I want to add my two cents to that conversation. What I say is informed by two things. First, in my role as Director of Admissions at the University of Calgary I have read some 2000 statements by law school applicants answering the very question posed by the OBA: “Why do you want to go to law school?” Second, as a law professor, and in particular as a law professor interested in regulation of things like lawyer civility, I have thought a lot about how the profession ought to respond to its oft-referenced “poor public image”.

Continue reading →

Who Gets the Final Say on a Mineral Royalty Calculation? And Some Grumbling on Standard of Review Analysis

PDF Version: Who Gets the Final Say on a Mineral Royalty Calculation? And Some Grumbling on Standard of Review Analysis

Case considered: Saskatchewan (Ministry of Energy and Resources) v Areva Resources Canada Inc., 2013 SKCA 79

This comment looks at a recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concerning the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision made by Saskatchewan’s Minister of Energy and Resources. In Saskatchewan (Ministry of Energy and Resources) v Areva Resources Canada Inc., 2013 SKCA 79, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upholds a royalty calculation made by the Minister pursuant to the Crown Minerals Act, SS 1984-85-86, c C-50.2 and underlying regulations. I think this case is of interest to ABlawg readers because it involves the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision and it also concerns appellate-level consideration of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision – a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post “Of Killer Whales, Sage-grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny”.